02.07.2013 08:46, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Is "How important is the ability to use redundant PDUs for fencing?" better?
Yes.
I'd only add ...redundant PDUs (or similar) for fencing...
>
> On 02/07/2013, at 3:30 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>
>> 02.07.2013 03:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> O
Is "How important is the ability to use redundant PDUs for fencing?" better?
On 02/07/2013, at 3:30 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 02.07.2013 03:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 02/07/2013, at 8:51 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 10:19 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
02.07.2013 03:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 02/07/2013, at 8:51 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>
>> On 01/07/2013, at 10:19 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>
>>> 01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
And if people start using it, then we might look at simplifying it.
>>>
>>> May
01.07.2013 22:51, Digimer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to elaborate on Andrew's "Guest Fencing"[1] tutorial to make
> it a bit easier for newer users to follow. I also updated it for Fedora
> 18/19 as well.
>
> It's the first release, so there is certainly typos, mistakes and
> what-not. Any
On 02/07/2013, at 12:12 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-01T14:15:01, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>> Reproducible on the non-DC node during full start-up of a cluster, yes.
>
> And it turns out to be a CIB problem afterall. Or I'm doing something
> else wrong:
>
> I'm doing, basica
Apparently CC'ing the list on my replies was too subtle... can you please sign
up to and reply to the mailing list?
I don't do private support.
On 28/06/2013, at 10:48 PM, Sartoratti Lorenzo
wrote:
> Our problem is that if i give "crm resource stop vm1" and immediatly after
> "crm resource st
On 02/07/2013, at 8:51 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2013, at 10:19 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>
>> 01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And if people start using it, then we might look at simplifying it.
>>
>> May be it's worth to have anonymous poll at clusterla
Hi Leon,
thank you for the pointer to the manuals. I read it already.
My 2-node-cluster seems not to fence the other node
at startup. And I do not have an explanation. That's the reason
I asked (after reading the docs).
- CMAN_QUORUM_TIMEOUT=0
As the inline doc says:
# CMAN_QUORUM_TIMEOUT -- amo
On 01/07/2013, at 10:28 PM, Andreas Mock wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> just want to get clear about startup fencing.
>
> Scenario: RHEL 6.4, cman, 2-node-cluster, pacemaker,
> fence via pcmk-redirect. pacemaker stonith enabled,
> no-quorum-policy=ignore, CMAN_QUORUM_TIMEOUT=0
>
>
> When should a star
On 01/07/2013, at 10:19 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>
>> And if people start using it, then we might look at simplifying it.
>
> May be it's worth to have anonymous poll at clusterlabs.org for that?
I'll try and put one up today
___
On 02/07/2013, at 2:58 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 12:43 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> On 2013-07-01T11:53:29, Digimer wrote:
>>
>>> You are right, of course. Imagine though that the IPMI BMC's network
>>> port or cable could have silently failed some time before the node
>>> failed.
On 02/07/2013, at 2:13 AM, Digimer wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but people around here also tend to be quite vocal when they think
>> something is missing.
>> More so if its something critical.
>
>
I mean more than you, Jake and Vladislav.
That's not quite a party yet :-)
_
On 02/07/2013, at 12:12 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-01T14:15:01, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>> Reproducible on the non-DC node during full start-up of a cluster, yes.
>
> And it turns out to be a CIB problem afterall. Or I'm doing something
> else wrong:
>
> I'm doing, basica
Hi all,
I've published on clusterlabs.org my first mini-tutorial on setting up
pacemaker to use ordered, multi-method fencing. It covers configuring
fencing to first try IPMI and, if that fails, fall back to fencing using
dual PDUs. This covers users who use redundant power rails.
http://cluste
Hi all,
I wanted to elaborate on Andrew's "Guest Fencing"[1] tutorial to make
it a bit easier for newer users to follow. I also updated it for Fedora
18/19 as well.
It's the first release, so there is certainly typos, mistakes and
what-not. Any feedback would be much appreciated!
https://alt
On 07/01/2013 01:57 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-01T13:52:22, Digimer wrote:
>
>> 1. It won't (reliably) work with DRBD because.
>
> Not by itself, no. You need shared storage for it, not replicated
> storage. (Though the shared storage can be provided by other nodes via
> iSCSI to
On 2013-07-01T13:52:22, Digimer wrote:
> 1. It won't (reliably) work with DRBD because.
Not by itself, no. You need shared storage for it, not replicated
storage. (Though the shared storage can be provided by other nodes via
iSCSI too.)
> 2. I never trust a fence method that requires the victim
On 07/01/2013 01:44 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-01T13:44:43, Digimer wrote:
>
>>> I only use fence_*, so the wrapper would need to be there for me to test it.
>>>
>>> Tell me about how sbd works, please.
>> nm, found the page for it.
>>
>> http://www.linux-ha.org/wiki/SBD_Fencing
>
On 2013-07-01T13:44:43, Digimer wrote:
> > I only use fence_*, so the wrapper would need to be there for me to test it.
> >
> > Tell me about how sbd works, please.
> nm, found the page for it.
>
> http://www.linux-ha.org/wiki/SBD_Fencing
Yeah, smart me, forgot to add the URL.
The above one i
On 07/01/2013 12:59 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-01T12:58:25, Digimer wrote:
>
>>> Pacemaker can monitor the fencing device if you configure a monitor
>>> action for it, for exactly this reason.
>> My *very* initial testing of op monitor="30" didn't detect the failure
>> or recovery
Am 01.07.2013 um 14:28 schrieb Andreas Mock :
> Hi all,
>
> just want to get clear about startup fencing.
>
> Scenario: RHEL 6.4, cman, 2-node-cluster, pacemaker,
> fence via pcmk-redirect. pacemaker stonith enabled,
> no-quorum-policy=ignore, CMAN_QUORUM_TIMEOUT=0
>
>
> When should a startup f
On 07/01/2013 01:43 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 12:59 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> On 2013-07-01T12:58:25, Digimer wrote:
>>
Pacemaker can monitor the fencing device if you configure a monitor
action for it, for exactly this reason.
>>> My *very* initial testing of op monitor=
On 2013-07-01T12:58:25, Digimer wrote:
> > Pacemaker can monitor the fencing device if you configure a monitor
> > action for it, for exactly this reason.
> My *very* initial testing of op monitor="30" didn't detect the failure
> or recovery of the fence device. I may very well have screwed somet
On 07/01/2013 12:43 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-01T11:53:29, Digimer wrote:
>
>> You are right, of course. Imagine though that the IPMI BMC's network
>> port or cable could have silently failed some time before the node
>> failed.
>
> Pacemaker can monitor the fencing device if yo
On 2013-07-01T11:53:29, Digimer wrote:
> You are right, of course. Imagine though that the IPMI BMC's network
> port or cable could have silently failed some time before the node
> failed.
Pacemaker can monitor the fencing device if you configure a monitor
action for it, for exactly this reason.
On 07/01/2013 08:19 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>> Well its possible right now, it "just" not super pretty to configure.
> I already set "Important" IMAP flag on that message and really willing
> to copy that into my internal wiki ;)
This might be of use (note that I wrote it, not Andrew, so bla
On 07/01/2013 07:53 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>
>> 01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> ...
> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in
> the first place.
> If it were actually useful, I sus
On 07/01/2013 08:10 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2013, at 10:06 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>
>> 01.07.2013 14:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>>
01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
...
>>> I'm yet to be convi
On 07/01/2013 07:26 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Yes, but RHEL isn't the only Enterprise distro out there.
> Its not like Pacemaker has never been deployed in critical environments
> during the last decade.
>
> German Air Traffic Control (http://www.novell.com/success/dfs.html) for
> example.
> W
On 07/01/2013 04:52 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Right. It is often missed that actually more than one failure is
> required for that setup to fail. In case of dual PDU/PSU/UPS an
> IPMI based fencing is sufficient.
You are right, of course. Imagine though that the IPMI BMC's network
port or cab
On 06/29/2013 04:15 PM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> But not having that fallback fencing method does not introduce a SPOF.
> Both mainboard (or kernel or resource stop failure or whatever)
> and BMC would have to fail at the same time for the cluster to block...
Both the node and the IPMI BMC will die
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Furman"
> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:18:55 AM
> Subject: [Pacemaker] Enhancement requests for Pacemaker
>
>
>
> Dear Pacemaker community!
>
>
> We are almost completed our evaluation of Pacemaker + Corosyn
On 2013-07-01T14:15:01, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Reproducible on the non-DC node during full start-up of a cluster, yes.
And it turns out to be a CIB problem afterall. Or I'm doing something
else wrong:
I'm doing, basically straight from crm_mon.c:
xmlNode *cib_copy = copy_xml(curre
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Beekhof"
> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 7:14:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Fixed! - Re: Problem with dual-PDU fencing node
> with redundant PSUs
>
>
> On 01/07/2013, at 5:32 PM, Vladislav Bogdano
Hello again,
and thanks for your reply again.
> Sorry, no. That's up to you to decide. I go with corosync2 only because
> I'm pretty sure I can put that all into "Works for me" state now and in
> a future.
OK, I understand..
>
> > slides, to me safe choice seems to be cman + pacemaker + (patched
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Not sure if 2-node cluster is good example for playing with stonith.
Since you can't get quorum.
Dne 1.7.2013 14:28, Andreas Mock napsal(a):
> Hi all,
>
> just want to get clear about startup fencing.
>
> Scenario: RHEL 6.4, cman, 2-node-cluster, pa
Hi all,
just want to get clear about startup fencing.
Scenario: RHEL 6.4, cman, 2-node-cluster, pacemaker,
fence via pcmk-redirect. pacemaker stonith enabled,
no-quorum-policy=ignore, CMAN_QUORUM_TIMEOUT=0
When should a startup fencing operation occure?
I thought a freshly starting node not see
On 2013-07-01T21:09:18, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > Anything I should worry about?
>
> I would say so, because I can't think of a valid reason for it to happen.
> You'll probably want to use the blackbox to diagnose this.
>
> Reproducible or random?
Reproducible on the non-DC node during full st
01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2013, at 10:06 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>
>> 01.07.2013 14:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>>
01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
...
>>> I'm yet to be convinced t
01.07.2013 14:04, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
>> I actually did that myself, but I wouldn't recommend that way unless you
>> are familiar with all that. You may search through archives and look at
>> Andrew's blog (blog.clusterlabs.org, notably
>> http://blog.clusterlabs.org/blog/2012/pacemaker-and-clust
On 01/07/2013, at 10:06 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 01.07.2013 14:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>
>>> 01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> ...
>> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in
>>>
01.07.2013 14:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>
>> 01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> ...
> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in
> the first place.
> If it were actually useful, I suspect m
On 01/07/2013, at 9:53 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-01T21:37:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> And apparently, this is one of the scenarios for which fence topology
>>> was created and supports multiple devices per level. I'd venture the
>>> opinion that the current implementation
On 2013-07-01T21:37:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > And apparently, this is one of the scenarios for which fence topology
> > was created and supports multiple devices per level. I'd venture the
> > opinion that the current implementation of "multiple devices per level"
> > is broken (since it requ
On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> ...
I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in
the first place.
If it were actually useful, I suspect more than two/three people would
have asked fo
On 28/06/2013, at 10:48 PM, Sartoratti Lorenzo
wrote:
> Hi
> Il 06/28/2013 12:30 PM, Andrew Beekhof ha scritto:
>> On 28/06/2013, at 5:19 AM, Lorenzo Sartoratti
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> we are using pacemaker since two years and we are quite satisfied: thanks!
>>> We have 30 virtual machines
01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
...
>>> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in the
>>> first place.
>>> If it were actually useful, I suspect more than two/three people would have
>>> asked for it in the last decade.
>>
>> I'm just silently waiting for thi
On 30/06/2013, at 4:48 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-29T09:22:20, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> This doesn't help people who have dual power rails/PDUs for power
>>> redundancy.
>> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in the
>> first place.
>> If it
On 01/07/2013, at 5:17 PM, Florian Crouzat wrote:
> Le 29/06/2013 01:22, Andrew Beekhof a écrit :
>>
>> On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-27T12
On 01/07/2013, at 5:32 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 29.06.2013 02:22, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-27T12:53
On 30/06/2013, at 10:09 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sbd connects to the CIB and watches updates come in to see if pacemaker
> considers the node healthy still, and if the cluster partition is
> quorate according to the CIB. That's all working fine.
>
> But I've noticed that during
> I actually did that myself, but I wouldn't recommend that way unless you
> are familiar with all that. You may search through archives and look at
> Andrew's blog (blog.clusterlabs.org, notably
> http://blog.clusterlabs.org/blog/2012/pacemaker-and-cluster-filesystems/) for
> additional details. Y
Il 01/07/2013 09.06, Francesco Namuri ha scritto:
> Il 28/06/2013 14.06, Andrew Beekhof ha scritto:
>> On 27/06/2013, at 10:46 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/06/2013, at 9:44 PM, Francesco Namuri wrote:
>>>
> Can you attach /var/lib/pengine/pe-input-64.bz2 from SERVERNAME1 please?
>>>
01.07.2013 12:29, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
>> clvmd by default blocks if there are nodes in cluster which do not run
>> clvmd.
>>
>> There was an attempt to solve this issue for corosync2 stack, that
>> exists as a patch to clvmd (posted to lvm list -
>> http://www.redhat.com/archives/lvm-devel/2012-N
> clvmd by default blocks if there are nodes in cluster which do not run
> clvmd.
>
> There was an attempt to solve this issue for corosync2 stack, that
> exists as a patch to clvmd (posted to lvm list -
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/lvm-devel/2012-November/msg00024.html).
> For other stacks ad
01.07.2013 11:46, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to try RHEL6 based cluster with cman+pacemaker+clvmd.
> I've got simple test cluster running on two virtual machines
> according to clusters from scratch document. Please not, that
> since it's just test cluste for playing, I do not have a
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:15:57PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 07:27:19PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
> > On 06/28/2013 07:22 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > >
> > > On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >
Hi,
I wanted to try RHEL6 based cluster with cman+pacemaker+clvmd.
I've got simple test cluster running on two virtual machines
according to clusters from scratch document. Please not, that
since it's just test cluste for playing, I do not have any
fencing device, although no quorum policy is set
29.06.2013 02:22, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer wrote:
>
>> On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>>
On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith
Le 29/06/2013 01:22, Andrew Beekhof a écrit :
On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer wrote:
On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
Il 28/06/2013 14.06, Andrew Beekhof ha scritto:
> On 27/06/2013, at 10:46 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> On 25/06/2013, at 9:44 PM, Francesco Namuri wrote:
>>
Can you attach /var/lib/pengine/pe-input-64.bz2 from SERVERNAME1 please?
I'll be able to see if its something we've already
61 matches
Mail list logo
